2022 (3) TMI 274 - SCH - Central Excise

Supreme Court upholds exemption benefits until 2005-2006 under Notification No. 67/95-CE. No substantive change in item 'other.'

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the respondent retained exemption benefits until 2005-2006 under Notification No. 67/95-CE. The ... Captive consumption - benefit of the exemption Notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 till financial year 2005-2006 - Revenue has predicated their case on the addition of the item “other” in heading No.22.04 made vide subheading 2204.90 with effect from 01.03.2005 - CESTAT [2014 (11) TMI 919 - CESTAT CHENNAI] held that denial of CENVAT credit on the Molasses purchased from other sugar mill used in the manufacture of Rectified Spirit and ENA are also liable to be set aside - HELD THAT:- The addition is not a substantive change or modification. In fact, the Tribunal has pointed out and it is accepted that the changes were made pursuant to adoption and re-structuring of tariff from six digit to eight digit. The changes made were not with the intend to withdraw the existing benefits or to withdraw an exemption which had been given and had been enjoyed by the respondent/assessee for the last twenty years - appeal dismissed. Benefit of N/N. 67/95 - denial on the ground that molasses has been consumed in the manufacture of non-excisable ethyl alcohol - CESTAT [2018 (2) TMI 813 - CESTAT BANGALORE] held that rectified spirit which is not used for human consumption is nothing but ethyl alcohol and is finding place in tariff item no. 22072000 - HELD THAT:- Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as the respondent had enjoyed exemption benefits till 2005-2006 under Notification No. 67/95-CE. The addition of the item 'other' in heading No. 22.04 was not considered a substantive change, and the changes made were not intended to withdraw existing benefits. As a result, multiple appeals were also dismissed based on the same reasoning.